Cohen v. Radio-Elecs. Officers Union

In Cohen v. Radio-Elecs. Officers Union, 146 N.J. 140, 679 A.2d 1188 (1996), the Supreme Court clearly indicated the absolution of a client's right to discharge an attorney: The client's right to hire and fire an attorney is integral to the client-lawyer relationship. "A client may always discharge a lawyer, regardless of cause and regardless of any agreement between them. A client is not forced to entrust matters to an unwanted lawyer." The Court stated further that "a retainer agreement may not prevent a client from discharging a lawyer," id. at 157, 679 A.2d 1188, and that "as a matter of public policy, retainer agreements may not limit unreasonably a client's right to discharge an attorney." Id. at 160, 679 A.2d 1188. See also Restatement (Third) of the Law Governing Lawyers 32(c), 32 cmt. b (2000) (stating that a client may always discharge a lawyer); In re Succession of Wallace, 574 So. 2d 348, 355 (La.1991) (finding that a statute providing for the removal of a testator's appointed attorney "only for just cause" was unconstitutional based upon its direct conflict with Rule 1.16(a)(3)). Thus, in Cohen, the attorney could be terminated notwithstanding the limitations for doing so in the retainer agreement, but that the attorney was "entitled to recover in quantum meruit for the reasonable value of the services provided," id. at 164, 679 A.2d 1188, including "the cost of reasonable notice of termination." Id. at 165, 679 A.2d 1188. Moreover, R.P.C., 1.16(a) and (c) expressly provide that the only exceptions to the attorney's withdrawal from representation upon discharge are "when the attorney is required to do so by rule or when ordered to do so by a tribunal." No exceptions are made for a public official or person serving a statutory term.